You are on page 1of 10

Art.

777
!"#$%&$ () *+&) !%,-.&

Succession; Administration of Property; The title of the property owned by a
person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs; Such transmission is
subject to the claims of administration and the property may be taken from
the heirs for the purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this does not
prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate,
from himself to his heirs.The title of the property owned by a person who
dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. The deed of extrajudicial settlement
executed by Filomena Santos Vda. de Alfonso and Jose evidences their
intention to partition the inherited property. It delineated what portion of the
inherited property would belong to whom.

Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate; The sale to respondents was made after the
execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate; The extrajudicial
settlement of estate, even though not published, being deemed a partition of the
inherited property, Jose could validly transfer ownership over the specific
portion of the property that was assigned to him.
/.+01"23 () 45-3$&

Inheritance; The property rights and obligations to the extent of the value of
the inheritance of a person are transmitted to another through the
decedents death.Under the rules of succession, the heirs instantaneously
became co-owners of the Marcos properties upon the death of the President. In
this concept, nothing prevents the heirs from exercising their right to transfer or
dispose of the properties that constitute their legitimes, even absent their
declaration or absent the partition or the distribution of the estate.

Since the pending case before the Sandiganbayan survives the death of
Ferdinand E. Marcos, it is imperative therefore that the estate be duly
represented. The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due
process of every party to a litigation who may be affected by the intervening
death. The deceased litigant is himself protected, as he continues to be properly
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his
estate.

While it was not proven that respondents conspired in accumulating ill- gotten
wealth, they may be in possession, ownership or control of such ill-gotten
properties or the proceeds thereof as heirs of the Marcos couple. Thus, their
lack of participation in any illegal act does not remove the character of the
property as ill-gotten and, therefore, as rightfully belonging to the State.


Ining v. Vega 703 SCRA 406

Succession; Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession
are transmitted from the moment of death.!Since Leon died without issue,
his heirs are his siblings, Romana and Gregoria, who thus inherited the property
in equal shares. In turn, Romanas and Gregorias heirs ! the parties herein !
became entitled to the property upon the sisters passing.

Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for
succession, exclude relations by affinity.!What escaped the trial and appellate
courts notice, however, is that while it may be argued that Lucimo Sr.
performed acts that may be characterized as a repudiation of the co-ownership,
the fact is, he is not a co-owner of the property. Indeed, he is not an heir of
Gregoria; he is merely Antipolos son-in-law, being married to Antipolos
daughter Teodora. Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary
basis for succession, exclude relations by affinity. Art. 150. Family relations
include those: (1) Between husband and wife; (2) Between parents and children;
(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and (4) Among brothers and
sisters, whether of the full or half blood. In point of law, therefore, Lucimo Sr. is
not a co-owner of the property; Teodora is. Consequently, he cannot validly
effect a repudiation of the co-ownership, which he was never part of. For this
reason, prescription did not run adversely against Leonardo, and his right to
seek a partition of the property has not been lost.

Art. 781
Balus v. Balus
Succession; Inheritance; What consists inheritance; The rights to a
persons succession are transmitted from the moment of his death;
The inheritance of a person consists of the property and transmissible
rights and obligations existing at the time of his death as well as those
which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.
Since Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it only
follows that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no longer
formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim. Stated
differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot from
their father.

Article 783

Seangio v. Reyes (art. 783)

Disinheritance constitutes a disposition of the estate of a decedent;
Although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument,
conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is
written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to
dispose mortis causa[9] can be clearly deduced from the terms of the
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the
latters property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of
disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the
disposition of the property of the testator Segundo in favor of those who
would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.
10


Art. 799-800

6-7.85 () 95":$%7.

The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of
fraud at the time of its execution; The burden to show otherwise shifts to the
proponent of the will only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.

The omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will.
That the testator was tricked into signing it was not sufficiently established by
the fact that he had instituted his wife, who was more than fifty years his junior,
as the sole beneficiary; and disregarded petitioner and her family, who were the
ones who had taken the cudgels of taking care of [the testator] in his twilight
years.


The conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate
the document because the law does not even require that a notarial will be
executed and acknowledged on the same occasion. More important, the
will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by three or more credible
witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one
another. Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must acknowledge the will
before a notary public. In any event, we agree with the CA that the variance in
the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was
satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the notary public and the
instrumental witnesses.

The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the notary are
credible evidence of its due execution.Petitioner failed to substantiate her
claim of a grand conspiracy in the commission of a fraud. There was no
showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit from
the allowance of the will. Their testimony favoring it and the finding that it was
executed in accordance with the formalities required by law should be affirmed,
absent any showing of ill motives.

To be considered of sound mind, things that the testator must have the ability to
know.According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the
ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows:

o (1) the nature of the estate to be disposed of,
o (2) the proper objects of the testators bounty, and
o (3) the character of the testamentary act.
Applying this test to the present case, we find that the appellate court was
correct in holding that Placido had testamentary capacity at the time of the
execution of his will.

Testamentary incapacity does not necessarily require that a person shall
actually be insane or of unsound mind.Between the highest degree of
soundness of mind and memory which unquestionably carries with it full
testamentary capacity, and that degrees of mental aberration generally known
as insanity or idiocy, there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or
incapacity and while on one hand it has been held that mere weakness of mind,
or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age, will not render a person
incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person may make a valid
will, provided he has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to
know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his
property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the
mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise.

The law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it rests the burden
of showing why it should not be allowed. In the present case, petitioner has
failed to discharge this burden satisfactorily. For this reason, the Court cannot
attribute any reversible error on the part of the appellate tribunal that allowed the
probate of the will.

Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds of
property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their locations. As
regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his
wife as sole beneficiary. As we have stated earlier, the omission of some
relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of
fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.

;5"75<5- () =5>5

Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator,
being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law.

These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code, to
wit: Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the
end thereof by the testator himself or by the testators name written by some
other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator
and of one another.

The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally
unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will.Forgetfulness is not
equivalent to being of unsound mind. Besides, Article 799 of the New Civil Code
states: Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in
full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly
unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall
be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the
character of the testamentary act.

A purported will is not to be denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise,
the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its foundation,
for even if a will has been duly executed in fact, whether it will be probated
would have to depend largely on the attitude of those interested in the estate of
the deceased.It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter how
forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice
to move the Court to uphold said allegations.

The very existence of the Will is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed
testatrix has willed that her estate be distributed in the manner therein provided,
and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given
full effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby.
[i]rrespective x x x of the posture of any of the parties as regards the
authenticity and due execution of the will x x x in question, it is the mandate of
the law that it is the evidence before the court and/or [evidence that] ought to be
before it that is controlling.

Those who oppose the probate of a will to clearly establish that the
decedent was not of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution
of said will. Otherwise, the state is duty-bound to give full effect to the wishes
of the testator to distribute his estate in the manner provided in his will so long
as it is legally tenable.

Testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will
and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor.

No showing that Paciencia was publicly known to be insane one month or less
before the making of the Will.

The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived with him both here
and abroad, even if the latter was already married and already has children,
highlights the special bond between them.






Article 805
!<0."5 () ?!

Notarial Will; Attestation Clause; The enactment of the Civil Code in 1950 did put
in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar as the
attestation clause is concerned.Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided
prior to the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950, at a time when the statutory
provision governing the formal requirement of wills was Section 618 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. Reliance on these cases remains apropos, considering that
the requirement that the attestation state the number of pages of the will is
extant from Section 618. However, the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950 did
put in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar as
the attestation clause is concerned, that may vary from the philosophy that
governed these two cases. Article 809 of the Civil Code states: In the absence
of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence,
defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used
therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of
article 805.

A failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every
page can be liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual
examination, while a failure by the attestation clause to state that the
witnesses signed in one anothers presence should be considered a fatal
flaw since the attestation is the only textual guarantee of compliance.[I]t
may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omission which can be
supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to
extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the
allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which
cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of
the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.

Purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which
the will is written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of
one or some of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages;
There is substantial compliance with this requirement if the will states elsewhere
in it how many pages it is comprised of.

Instrumental Witnesses; Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement that
the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will, from the requisite that the
will be attested and subscribed by [the instrumental witnesses]the respective
intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct from each other; Even
if instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the
unsigned clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses
undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page were
directed towards a wholly different avowal.The Court today reiterates the
continued efficacy of Cagro. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every
page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are
signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the
attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements
contained in the attestation clause itself.

Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the
will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will. Even if the
instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the
unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these
witnesses undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on
the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal.

It is the attestation clause which contains the utterances reduced into writing of
the testamentary witnesses themselvesit is the witnesses, and not the testator,
who are required under Article 805 to state the number of pages used upon
which the will was written.The Court may be more charitably disposed had the
witnesses in this case signed the attestation clause itself, but not the left-hand
margin of the page containing such clause.

Acknowledgment; An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a
deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be
his act or deed; It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually
declares to the notary that the executor of the document has attested to the
notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.Yet, there is another
fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition should also hinge. The
requirement under Article 806 that every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses has also not been complied
with.

The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it had been
segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and entrusted into a
separate provision, Article 806. The non-observance of Article 806 in this case is
equally as critical as the other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and
should be treated as of equivalent import.

The express requirement of Article 806 is that the will is to be acknowledged,
and not merely subscribed and sworn to; The acknowledgment coerces the
testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law
that they had executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed.
A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before
a notary public.

The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation
clause is obvious; the document might easily be so prepared that the
removal of a sheet would completely change the testamentary dispositions
of the will and in the absence of a statement of the total number of sheets
such removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and changing the
numbers at the top of the following sheets or pages.

But the total number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did
so in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the
attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate
proceedings.


6-7.85 () 95":$%7.

The conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
document because the law does not even require that a notarial will be executed
and acknowledged on the same occasion. The will must be subscribed by the
testator, as well as by three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to
it in the presence of the testator and of one another. Furthermore, the testator
and the witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public. In any
event, we agree with the CA that the variance in the dates of the will as to its
supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively
explained by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.

The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the notary are
credible evidence of its due execution.Petitioner failed to substantiate her
claim of a grand conspiracy in the commission of a fraud. There was no
showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit from
the allowance of the will. The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and
the notary are credible evidence of its due execution. Their testimony favoring it
and the finding that it was executed in accordance with the formalities required
by law should be affirmed, absent any showing of ill motives.
=.. () @5:158$

A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by
law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect
after his death. A will may either be notarial or holographic.

Notarial Law; The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is
to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.The law provides
for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. The object
of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith
and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their
truth and authenticity. A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is
required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In
addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

A notarial will attested by only two witnesses is void.The will in question
was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. On this circumstance
alone, the will must be considered void. This is in consonance with the rule that
acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be
void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.

An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or
deed; The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose(1) to
safeguard the testators wishes long after his demise, and (2) to assure that his
estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.The Civil
Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public
by the testator and the witnesses. The importance of this requirement is
highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other requirements under
Article 805 and embodied in a distinct and separate provision. An
acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before
some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It
involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the
notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed. The
acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the
testators wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure that his estate is
administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.

Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the
entire will invalid.Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost
fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.
Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire
will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance
and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as
in this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its
contents. Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his acts. The
validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach
of duty.



Art. 806

A0.--.-$ () ;2B2&
A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for
probate; An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in
going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his act or deed, and
in the case of a notarial will, that competent officer is the notary public.
The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental
witnesses to declare before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they
executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed;
Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that is, a lawyer
duly commissioned as a notary public.Such declaration is under oath and
under pain of perjury, thus paving the way for the criminal prosecution of
persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those executed
without the free consent of the testator. It also provides a further degree of
assurance that the testator is of a certain mindset in making the testamentary
dispositions to the persons instituted as heirs or designated as devisees or
legatees in the will.

Outside the place of his commission, a notary public is bereft of power to
perform any notarial acthe is not a notary public; An acknowledgment
taken outside the territorial limits of the officers jurisdiction is void as if the
person taking it were wholly without official character. An acknowledgment
taken outside the territorial limits of the officers jurisdiction is void as if the
person taking it were wholly without official character.

Art. 809

!<0."5 () ?! CDE
=$+.< () =$+.<
Attestation Clause; The law is clear that the attestation must state the
number of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose of the
law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or
some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.
While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of the
attestation clause, Richard likewise failed in this respect. The statement in the
Acknowledgment portion of the subject last will and testament that it consists
of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are
written cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The will actually consists of
8 pages including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained
by mere examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence
aliunde.

Notes.That the requirements of attestation and acknowledgement are
embodied in two separate provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 805 and 806,
respectively) indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve
different purposes.
9 pages but will actually 10 pages
you allow 3rd party
i'm giving
What if there is a
misstatment??